memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:S'ti'ach
I created the redirect page because of the misspelling in the rear of the trilogy. --Captain Savar 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) I've also removed the following sentence, pending a citation. --Captain Savar 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC) ::The name and physical description of this species is an homage to the character Stitch from the film '' .'' You want a citation for background information detailing a joke by the author?... Best I can find is "I believe this was in reference to a certain cartoon character that Huilan resembles" in the annotations for Over a Torrent Sea. But this isn't really the sort of thing that is citable, it's a joke that relies on the cultural capital of the reader/MB editor to make the connection. --8of5 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC) :Perhaps you should review the Inclusion policy - "If the contributions you make are not explicitly sourced from a licensed product of Star Trek fiction, it can and will be deleted..." --Captain Savar 17:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC) How are you meant to "explicitly source" an in-joke exactly? This is why it was given as background information. The S'ti'ach are not the same species as scene in Lilo & Stitch because that would necessitate making a Disney film part of the Trekverse... but they are very clearly based on that design, as is described in the novels. That's as explicit as it can possibly be for this sort of information. --8of5 18:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ::Savar, that policy is pretty clearly meant to refer to in-universe characters, stories, etc. There is a huge amount of real-world information on many pages that is completely appropriate. For example, publication dates, ISBN numbers, etc. Background information to help the reader understand the story or to report something interesting about the real-world star trek universe (this case) falls into this category. I will take a look at the policy shortly to make sure it is clear. Of course this does leave open questions of when external information is appropriate, but it should not be automatically deleted. In this particular case, it does seem appropriate to me. There is another worry which is that it should be clearly true or at least checkable (as dates are). Here, I think it is pretty clearly true even without the Bennett quote. Other claims like "Christine Vale is named after the author's neighbor" or something (just made that up in case it isn't clear) should require a source. --Jdvelasc 16:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC) :::To 8of5: That's a darn good question. How does one cite an in-universe joke/reference, etc? Perhaps a hyperlink to wherever it was mentioned? An annotations page? The author's website? The trekBBS? That would certainly make it pretty clear that the connection you've drawn is backed up by the author/editor rather than some fan-put-together connection. I'd say that's how you source it. :::To Jdvelasc: That policy isn't pretty clear on anything except what's written. You'll have to forgive me for trying to come in and actually follow a wiki's policies, but the thing's exactly two sentences. It says to cite your sources, or they will be removed. And based on that, I did what it said - I removed something from an article without a citation. :::Either way, I've said my piece and generated some discussion on it, so I suppose that's the best for the community as a whole. --Captain Savar 17:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) To have to pester the authors to confirm every obvious in-joke seems a bit... bothersum. Anywho, this is being discussed on the policy page now, so I guess we'll figure something out. And you are otherwise quite right, you've identified an issue with our policies in enforcing them, which means we can straighten them out to get it right for next time :) --8of5 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)